I’m sorry.
After the “I’m a theist” part, I just lost interest in your words.
Anyone who believes in an imaginary big friend in the sky, no matter how nebulous, just doesn’t appear
credible and any opinion they may have concerning the nature of reality is tainted
by their delusional presuppositions.

Ah, the “I win the argument just because I’m an atheist argument.” I’ve become very familiar with it in the past few days. It typically means “I’m not going to answer your question, but take this opportunity to point out my superiority.” I assume this is part of the attitude that people refer to when they accuse Sam Harris of being “just as fundamentalist” as the religions he opposes, although in fairness I have not seen him personally engage in this line of thinking.

It’s also part of the reason that this is largely a theoretical movement chasing it’s own tail on message boards. Again, not that I agree on that whole God part (silliness intended, thanks), but in some ways that’s a shame. Intellectual rationalism has a lot to offer with proper, useful application, which is a gigantic boat being missed here, I think.

Yes, it is superior to base one’s relationship with life on facts that can be substantiated and not rely on the myths of one’s ancestors.
There is a world of difference between a belief structure that is based on the foundational assumption that a supernatural creator god exists and a belief structure that is based on observable facts.
You claim to believe in a creator god.
Do you have anything to support that belief?
It may appear to you that I am not being polite my approach.
That is one of the ways that the delusion of religion sustains itself.
A god without qualities is no god at all.
What are the qualities of this god you believe in?
Is it a male or female?
Is it omniscient and omnipotent?
Does it have a mind and a will?
Does it have a plan?
Does it exist outside of time?
Does it intercede on behalf of those who pray?

I am not picking on you.
When and if my grandchildren inquire about the Easter Bunny,
I will ask them the same questions.
Believing that a large bunny brings eggs helps to create a mind that lives in a
magical thinking shadowland is the breeding ground for more even Democrats.

Toombaru, my point is that you can’t argue an unrelated point by saying “I’m an atheist and you’re not, therefore my opinions on all unrelated matters are automatically more valid.” Then you’re pretty much right back at fundamentalist religion, minus a god. My statements had absolutely nothing to do with theology.

Back to my original point, it’s not for me to say what anyone does with their time, it’s a free country. I just hate to see wasted potential, and Project Reason seems to have been successful in bringing together massive brainpower, gaining a good bit of momentum, and presumably generating funding - potential city, right? Yet unless I’m under-informed here, I don’t see it going anywhere relevant, which is too bad.

You said that you were a theist.
That seems to indicate a belief in a supernatural power.
The atheistic perspective is more valid in that it are based on the presence of absence of evidence.
If you say that there is a God, the burden of proof lies in your court.
The absence of something cannot be proven.
The term “atheist” is very misleading.
We don’t have a word for a person who doesn’t believe in Santa or Cinderella.
We have no name of someone doesn’t factor luck into their life.
I don’t believe in a lot of things and yet people single out my non-belief in a god and call me an atheist.

Toombaru, my point is that you can’t argue an unrelated point by saying “I’m an atheist and you’re not, therefore my opinions on all unrelated matters are automatically more valid.” Then you’re pretty much right back at fundamentalist religion, minus a god. My statements had absolutely nothing to do with theology.

Back to my original point, it’s not for me to say what anyone does with their time, it’s a free country. I just hate to see wasted potential, and Project Reason seems to have been successful in bringing together massive brainpower, gaining a good bit of momentum, and presumably generating funding - potential city, right? Yet unless I’m under-informed here, I don’t see it going anywhere relevant, which is too bad.

Indeed. Fwiw, I have to agree with you Lexie_99

“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.”
—Bertrand Russell, “Skeptical Essays”, 1928

Isn’t in just whack that a lifetime of education and experience does not teach one that truth is more than a five letter word?

Faith can completely defined as sincerity, and speaking against faith is doomed to failure. Crazy, huh?

Don’t take it personal when I say religion is straight crap - because faith is the vehicle of identity - and defense of religion thus reduced to idolatry. “Your religion” is your faith. I’m an atheist so I pretty much do not tell other atheists what to do, and they are free to play the semantics game from now until the second Tuesday of next week; without an understanding of faith and identity, atheism cannot prevail.

How’s that for an odd thing to hear from an atheist on Sam’s ghostly forum? :D